I so want that for my cubicle now.
The (scanned) article snippet says âconsistently below chanceâ - so Iâm assuming theyâre referring to tests in which theyâve disproved the null hypothesis.
Douglas Deanâs book was a demonstration that the executives whose companies increase profits the most, score far higher than average on precognition tests. Surely he was applying careful and methodical scientific research to selling pop-sci books on the correlation between business success and PSI.
Ah well then. Perhaps not.
On a side note, Iâve noticed thereâs a whole genre of writings and other endeavours dedicated to revealing the hidden causes of becoming rich. Itâs become a sort of modern day quest for the philosopherâs stone. Has to be one of the saddest human activities going.
Shouldnât probability even everyoneâs aggregate experience out over time?
So does yours; it has replied to me but quoted someone else.
Things are so complicated nowadays. In the past the only real problem was keyboards that couldnât spell properly.
If thereâs no effect, then yes. But if there is an effect then the opposite happens â aggregation though meta-analysis increases the sample size and makes small effects more statistically significant.
Meta-analysis is big in the sciences these days, both hard (like physics) and softer (like parapsychology).
Or they met the guy from Intacto.
By âeffectâ do you mean positive or negative feedback - like each drink making the next drink feel like an even better idea?
I believe this can be explained by the fact that I recently changed the screensaver from seven four leaf clovers and horseshoes dancing around a rabbit foot to thirteen black cats walking across the screen under ladders while toppling salt shakers and breaking mirrors as they go.
We canât really explain what mass is, but we certainly know when we collide with a lamppost.
HoweverâŚwhen I was at school we had someone in another class who definitely radiated bad luck. It was claimed that he could break laboratory glassware just by looking at it, and he was in the room when my ionisation chamber went haywire, and in the next room when the belt broke on the van der Graaf. I believe he passed the Cambridge scholarship exam so he didnât need to do well in the physics and chemistry practicals. He then managed nearly to kill himself on a motorcycle. I have to admit that I kept well away from him, despite being in the same college, in case it was catching.
Hard and soft science seem to me to be the other way round. Tremendous progress has been made in physics, so it must be quite easy, a nice soft life for its students. No progress at all has been made in parapsychology, so it must be hard.
After all, it couldnât possibly be that parapsychology is unscientific mumbo-jumbo with a top dressing of poor experimental method and misapplied statistics, could it?
Do you have negative ESP?
No I donât, but Iâm sure my Boss has it.
I donât win raffles or drawings. Except in the very rare circumstance where the prize is something I already own and cannot use another one of. This has happened twice.
Mr. Bellsâ office Christmas party has a raffle every year. You play casino games for tickets. Last year, they didnât have poker (which is my favorite), so I did karaoke all night instead. Mr. Bells won a bunch of raffle tickets and asked me what prizes we should put in for. I told him that we wouldnât win any if I chose, so he should do it all on his own. His was the first name drawn.
That is such a great movie